Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, Academic and Research Integrity in Higher Education: A Bibliometric Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63158/journalisi.v8i5.1763Keywords:
Artificial intelligence, Higher education, AI ethics, Academic integrity, Research integrity, Bibliometric analysis, VOSviewerAbstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) offers considerable benefits to higher education, yet its adoption raises persistent concerns about ethics and academic and research integrity. Few studies have mapped this intersection bibliometrically. This study, therefore, analysed 213 journal articles published between 2015 and 2025 and indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, with record selection reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. VOSviewer was used to examine publication trends, leading sources, highly cited studies, productive countries, keyword co-occurrence and the temporal evolution of themes. Output was negligible before 2023 and grew sharply thereafter. The United States, China and the United Kingdom led production, whereas African contributions remained limited. Of the 845 harmonised keywords, 20 met a minimum occurrence threshold of six (6) and formed four (4) interconnected clusters: AI research ethics and privacy; responsible generative AI and literacy; AI and academic integrity; and AI-enabled teaching and educational technology. Recent scholarship has shifted towards generative AI, AI literacy and educational technology, while research integrity remains under-examined relative to academic integrity. The findings underscore the need for institutional AI governance frameworks, AI-literacy development, and more empirical and African-led research.
Downloads
References
[1] Y. K. Dwivedi et al., “Opinion paper: ‘So what if ChatGPT wrote it?’ Multi-disciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 71, Art. no. 102642, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642.
[2] L. Floridi et al., “AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations,” Minds Mach., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 689–707, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5.
[3] E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 103, Art. no. 102274, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.
[4] D. T. K. Ng, E. K. C. Chan, and C. K. Lo, “Opportunities, challenges and school strategies for integrating generative AI in education,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 8, Art. no. 100373, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100373.
[5] Y. R. Marín, O. C. Caro, A. M. C. Rituay, K. A. G. Llanos, D. T. Perez, E. S. Bardales, J. N. A. Tuesta, and R. C. Santos, “Ethical challenges associated with the use of artificial intelligence in university education,” J. Acad. Ethics, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2443–2467, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10805-025-09660-w.
[6] C. Gallent-Torres, A. Zapata-González, and J. L. Ortego-Hernando, “The impact of generative artificial intelligence in higher education: A focus on ethics and academic integrity,” RELIEVE—Rev. Electron. Investig. Eval. Educ., vol. 29, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.30827/relieve.v29i2.29134.
[7] I. D. Mienye and T. G. Swart, “ChatGPT in education: A review of ethical challenges and approaches to enhancing transparency and privacy,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 254, pp. 181–190, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2025.02.077.
[8] J. E. Duah and P. McGivern, “How generative artificial intelligence has blurred notions of authorial identity and academic norms in higher education, necessitating clear university usage policies,” Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 180–193, 2024, doi: 10.1108/IJILT-11-2023-0213.
[9] D. R. E. Cotton, P. A. Cotton, and J. R. Shipway, “Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT,” Innov. Educ. Teach. Int., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 228–239, 2024, doi: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148.
[10] E. A. M. van Dis, J. Bollen, W. Zuidema, R. van Rooij, and C. L. H. Bockting, “ChatGPT: Five priorities for research,” Nature, vol. 614, no. 7947, pp. 224–226, 2023, doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7.
[11] A. Tlili et al., “What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 10, no. 1, Art. no. 15, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x.
[12] A. Jobin, M. Ienca, and E. Vayena, “The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines,” Nat. Mach. Intell., vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 389–399, 2019, doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2.
[13] S. Magalhães, “Ethics and integrity in research: Why bridging the gap between ethics and integrity matters,” J. Acad. Ethics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 137–147, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10805-024-09504-z.
[14] T. Bretag et al., “Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students,” Stud. Higher Educ., vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 1837–1856, 2019, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788.
[15] A. Guadu, D. Dibekulu, and A. W. Menberu, “Academic integrity in the age of AI: Challenges and strategies for African higher education,” Discover Educ., vol. 5, no. 1, Art. no. 21, 2026, doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-01031-2.
[16] UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (SHS/BIO/PI/2021/1). Paris, France: UNESCO, 2021.
[17] J. P. Tennant et al., “A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review,” F1000Research, vol. 6, Art. no. 1151, 2017, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3.
[18] B. C. Stahl and D. Wright, “Ethics and privacy in AI and big data: Implementing responsible research and innovation,” IEEE Secur. Privacy, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 26–33, 2018, doi: 10.1109/MSP.2018.2701164.
[19] B. D. Lund and K. T. Naheem, “Can ChatGPT be an author? A study of artificial intelligence authorship policies in top academic journals,” Learned Publ., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 13–21, 2024, doi: 10.1002/leap.1582.
[20] W. Holmes and I. Tuomi, “State-of-the-art and practice in AI in education,” Eur. J. Educ., vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 542–570, 2022, doi: 10.1111/ejed.12533.
[21] Y. Yan, H. Liu, and T. Chau, “A systematic review of AI ethics in education: Challenges, policy gaps, and future directions,” J. Glob. Inf. Manage., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–50, 2025, doi: 10.4018/JGIM.386381.
[22] N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim, “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 133, pp. 285–296, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070.
[23] O. Öztürk, R. Kocaman, and D. K. Kanbach, “How to design bibliometric research: An overview and a framework proposal,” Rev. Manag. Sci., vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 3333–3361, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0.
[24] K. H. Arar, H. Özen, G. Polat, and S. Turan, “Artificial intelligence, generative artificial intelligence and research integrity: A hybrid systemic review,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 12, no. 1, Art. no. 44, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s40561-025-00403-3.
[25] A. Yusuf, N. Pervin, M. Román-González, and N. M. Noor, “Generative AI in education and research: A systematic mapping review,” Rev. Educ., vol. 12, no. 2, Art. no. e3489, 2024, doi: 10.1002/rev3.3489.
[26] A. Summers, M. El Haddad, R. Prichard, K.-A. Clarke, J. Lee, and F. Oprescu, “Navigating challenges and opportunities: Nursing student’s views on generative AI in higher education,” Nurse Educ. Pract., vol. 79, Art. no. 104062, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2024.104062.
[27] C. Merino-Campos, “The impact of artificial intelligence on personalised learning in higher education: A systematic review,” Trends Higher Educ., vol. 4, no. 2, Art. no. 17, 2025, doi: 10.3390/the4020017.
[28] O. P. Barus, A. N. Hidayanto, E. Y. Handri, D. I. Sensuse, and C. Yaiprasert, “Shaping generative AI governance in higher education: Insights from student perception,” Int. J. Educ. Res. Open, vol. 8, Art. no. 100452, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ijedro.2025.100452.
[29] I. M. Castillo-Martínez, D. Flores-Bueno, S. M. Gómez-Puente, and V. O. Vite-León, “AI in higher education: A systematic literature review,” Front. Educ., vol. 9, Art. no. 1391485, 2024, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1391485.
[30] D. Kalniņa, D. Nimante, and S. Baranova, “Artificial intelligence for higher education: Benefits and challenges,” Front. Educ., vol. 9, Art. no. 1501819, 2024, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1501819.
[31] A. P. Oliveira, M. Coelho, O. Póvoa, B. Morgado, and C. Guerra, “Higher education teachers’ perspectives on the ethical challenges of using artificial intelligence—A case study in the Alto Alentejo region, Portugal,” Front. Educ., vol. 11, Art. no. 1780142, 2026, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1780142.
[32] L. Guan, Y. Zhang, and M. M. Gu, “Pre-service teachers preparedness for AI-integrated education: An investigation from perceptions, capabilities, and teachers’ identity changes,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 8, Art. no. 100341, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100341.
[33] N. Annamalai, B. Bervell, D. Mireku, and R. Andoh, “Artificial intelligence in higher education: Modelling students’ motivation for continuous use of ChatGPT based on a modified self-determination theory,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 8, Art. no. 100346, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100346.
[34] J. Kamali, M. F. Alpat, and A. Bozkurt, “AI ethics as a complex and multifaceted challenge: Decoding educators’ AI ethics alignment through the lens of activity theory,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. Higher Educ., vol. 21, no. 1, Art. no. 62, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s41239-024-00496-9.
[35] I. Protopapa and B. Idris, “Ethical and moral pitfalls of generative AI in academic research,” in Generative AI in Higher Education, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025, pp. 145–163, doi: 10.4337/9781035326020.00022.
[36] S. Allana, M. Kankanhalli, and R. Dara, “Privacy risks and preservation methods in explainable artificial intelligence: A scoping review,” arXiv, Art. no. 2505.02828, 2025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02828.
[37] N. Mehrabi, F. Morstatter, N. Saxena, K. Lerman, and A. Galstyan, “A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 54, no. 6, Art. no. 115, pp. 1–35, 2021, doi: 10.1145/3457607.
[38] K. Holstein, B. M. McLaren, and V. Aleven, “Designing for complementarity: Teacher and student needs for orchestration support in AI-enhanced classrooms,” in Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2019, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11625. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019, pp. 157–171, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-23204-7_14.
[39] D. Long and B. Magerko, “What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations,” in Proc. 2020 CHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Syst., Honolulu, HI, USA, 2020, pp. 1–16, doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376727.
[40] J. H. Yu, D. Chauhan, R. A. Iqbal, and E. Yeoh, “Mapping academic perspectives on AI in education: Trends, challenges, and sentiments in educational research (2018–2024),” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 199–227, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11423-024-10425-2.
[41] C. Wang, X. Chen, T. Yu, Y. Liu, and Y. Jing, “Education reform and change driven by digital technology: A bibliometric study from a global perspective,” Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, Art. no. 256, 2024, doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y.
[42] O. A. Oguntona and C. E. Emere, “Mapping the landscape of artificial intelligence in teaching and learning across African higher education,” Interdiscip. J. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no. 2, Art. no. a17, 2025, doi: 10.38140/ijer-2025.vol7.2.17.
[43] O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond, and F. Gouverneur, “Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators?” Int. J. Educ. Technol. Higher Educ., vol. 16, no. 1, Art. no. 39, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0.
[44] M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow et al., "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," BMJ, vol. 372, Art. no. n71, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
[45] A. Montazeri, S. Mohammadi, P. M. Hesari, M. Ghaemi, H. Riazi, and Z. Sheikhi-Mobarakeh, "Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): A minimum requirements," Syst. Rev., vol. 12, no. 1, Art. no. 239, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2.
[46] P. Mongeon and A. Paul-Hus, “The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis,” Scientometrics, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 213–228, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
[47] V. K. Singh, P. Singh, M. Karmakar, J. Leta, and P. Mayr, “The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis,” Scientometrics, vol. 126, no. 6, pp. 5113–5142, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5.
[48] Y. Lu, Y. Zhang, Z. Huang, B. Cheng, C. Wang, Y. Sun, H. Zhang, and J. Li, “A literature review of sustainable building research: Bibliometric analysis from 2015–2025,” Buildings, vol. 15, no. 19, Art. no. 3609, 2025, doi: 10.3390/buildings15193609.
[49] S. M. dos Santos, G. Fraumann, S. Belli, and R. Mugnaini, “The relationship between the language of scientific publication and its impact in the field of public and collective health,” J. Scientometric Res., vol. 10, no. 1S, pp. S78–S87, 2021, doi: 10.5530/JSCIRES.10.1S.24.
[50] N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
[51] N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, "How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures," J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 1635–1651, 2009, doi: 10.1002/asi.21075.
[52] M. J. Cobo, A. G. López-Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera, “Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1382–1402, 2011, doi: 10.1002/asi.21525.
[53] A. Klarin, “How to conduct a bibliometric content analysis: Guidelines and contributions of content co-occurrence or co-word literature reviews,” Int. J. Consum. Stud., vol. 48, no. 2, Art. no. e13031, 2024, doi: 10.1111/ijcs.13031.
[54] A. Nguyen, H. N. Ngo, Y. Hong, B. Dang, and B. P. T. Nguyen, “Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 4221–4241, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w.
[55] M. Ryan, “In AI we trust: Ethics, artificial intelligence, and reliability,” Sci. Eng. Ethics, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 2749–2767, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00228-y.
[56] A. Rejeb, K. Rejeb, A. Appolloni, H. Treiblmaier, and M. Iranmanesh, “Exploring the impact of ChatGPT on education: A web mining and machine learning approach,” Int. J. Manage. Educ., vol. 22, no. 1, Art. no. 100932, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2024.100932.
[57] J. Saltz, M. Skirpan, C. Fiesler, M. Gorelick, T. Yeh, R. Heckman, N. Dewar, and N. Beard, “Integrating ethics within machine learning courses,” ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1–26, 2019, doi: 10.1145/3341164.
[58] K. Siau and W. Wang, “Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics: Ethics of AI and ethical AI,” J. Database Manage., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 74–87, 2020, doi: 10.4018/JDM.2020040105.
[59] S. Coghlan, T. Miller, and J. Paterson, “Good proctor or ‘big brother’? Ethics of online exam supervision technologies,” Philos. Technol., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1581–1606, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1.
[60] M. Ryan and B. C. Stahl, “Artificial intelligence ethics guidelines for developers and users: Clarifying their content and normative implications,” J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 61–86, 2021, doi: 10.1108/JICES-12-2019-0138.
[61] R. T. Williams, “The ethical implications of using generative chatbots in higher education,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, Art. no. 1331607, 2024, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1331607.
[62] S. Lo Piano, “Ethical principles in machine learning and artificial intelligence: Cases from the field and possible ways forward,” Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., vol. 7, no. 1, Art. no. 9, 2020, doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-0501-9.
[63] E. Burton, J. Goldsmith, S. Koenig, B. Kuipers, N. Mattei, and T. Walsh, “Ethical considerations in artificial intelligence courses,” AI Mag., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 22–34, 2017, doi: 10.1609/aimag.v38i2.2731.
[64] N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “Visualising bibliometric networks,” in Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice, Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, and D. Wolfram, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2014, pp. 285–320, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13.
[65] L. Cruvinel Júnior, H. O. Ascama, and M. Marques da Silva, “AI ethics in higher education: A review of ethical challenges,” in Ethical and Social Impacts of Information and Communication Technology, Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025, pp. 192–203, doi: 10.1007/978-3-032-01429-0_17.
[66] S. Peddi and G. Manoharan, “Research issues and challenges in higher education,” in Social Implications of Research in Higher Education, Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 2025, pp. 297–326, doi: 10.4018/979-8-3373-0654-4.ch011.
[67] M. Rojas Contreras, J. L. Mendoza Bejarano, L. Villamizar Carrillo, O. A. Villamizar Peña, and L. C. Quintana, “Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Higher Education,” LACCEI, vol. 1, no. 12, 2025, doi: 10.18687/LACCEI2025.1.1.1620.
[68] E. Barbierato, A. Gatti, and M. Gribaudo, “Benchmarking education on the ethical aspects of artificial intelligence: Integrating empathy into AI ethics training,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop Education for Artificial Intelligence (edu4AI 2025), co-located with ECAI 2025, Bologna, Italy, 2025, pp. 1–6, CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 4114.
[69] J. Mak, M. Castellana, and W. Wen, “Evaluating AI teacher training curricula through a lens of equity, ethics, and justice,” in Teaching with Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Primary and Elementary Educators, S. Papadakis, Ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2025, pp. 79–94, doi: 10.4324/9781003685241-8.
[70] M. Adamakis and T. Rachiotis, “Artificial intelligence in higher education: A state-of-the-art overview of pedagogical integrity, artificial intelligence literacy, and policy integration,” Encyclopedia, vol. 5, no. 4, Art. no. 180, 2025, doi: 10.3390/encyclopedia5040180.
[71] M. Sullivan, A. Kelly, and P. McLaughlan, “ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning,” J. Appl. Learn. Teach., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 31–40, 2023, doi: 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17.
[72] R. G. Singh and C. S. B. Ngai, “Top-ranked US and UK universities’ first responses to GenAI: Key themes, emotions, and pedagogical implications for teaching and learning,” Discover Educ., vol. 3, no. 1, Art. no. 115, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s44217-024-00211-w.
[73] A. Arunprakash, L. B. Muralidhar, N. Sathyanarayana, P. Kumari, and R. Shilpa, “Optimising pedagogical integrity through AI governance in educational ecosystems,” in AI-Powered Transformations for Ethical Education, Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 2026, pp. 85–112, doi: 10.4018/979-8-3373-4982-4.ch004.
[74] R. Atef, “Integrating artificial intelligence in education with a strategic framework for ethical and inclusive innovation,” in AI and Green Innovation for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals, Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 2026, pp. 173–204, doi: 10.4018/979-8-3373-7584-7.ch007.
[75] C. Nyamwange, “Assessing the extent of integration of artificial intelligence in teaching and learning at Kenyan universities,” Pan-Afr. J. Educ. Soc. Sci., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 76–87, 2025, doi: 10.56893/pajes2025v06i01.06.
[76] A. Gawe and A. Gudyanga, “The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on development studies’ learners at one state university campus in Zvishavane, Zimbabwe,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, Art. no. 2539217, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2539217.
[77] Y. Flückiger, “The AI revolution in higher education: Transforming teaching and research,” JoHEPAL, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 30–44, 2025, doi: 10.66224/johepal.6.4.30.
[78] S. Sridevi, G. Deebikaa, K. Pavithra, and S. Subalakshmi, “A critical analysis of AI tools in enhancing teaching methods and faculty performance in higher education,” in Data-Driven Decision Making for Sustainable Business Growth, Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025, pp. 555–564, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-96530-2_51.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Information Systems and Informatics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author's Declaration
- The Authors certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (JournalISI) submission guidelines, policies, and submission declaration. The submission has been prepared using the provided template.
- The Authors certify that all authors have approved the publication of this manuscript and that there is no conflict of interest.
- The Authors confirm that the manuscript is their original work, has not received prior publication, is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and has not been previously published.
- The Authors confirm that all authors listed on the title page have contributed significantly to the work, have read the manuscript, attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation, and agree to its submission.
- The Authors confirm that the manuscript is not copied from or plagiarized from any other published work.
- The Authors declare that the manuscript will not be submitted for publication in any other journal or magazine until a decision is made by the journal editors.
- If the manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Authors confirm that they will either proceed with publication immediately or withdraw the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s withdrawal policies.
- The Authors agree that, upon publication of the manuscript in this journal, they transfer copyright or assign exclusive rights to the publisher, including commercial rights
